ELT battery replacement

[Tom Downey]

Thanks again Mike. Seems a lot like the tax code, gotta have real pros to interpret!

If you want the real Pros they are in OKC. you can pose question directly on the FAA home page.

And I was asked what was so hard to understand....

Were you not the one that stated he could not read government legalese ?

Had me feeling kinda dumb - briefly.

we all feel that way from time to time, but we will help when asked.

[Frank Giger]

Tom, you missed the best part of Mike's statement:

Of course, if you don't comply with the manufacturer-specified interval, then you need to comply with some other acceptable guidance to comply with 91.207. The only other acceptable guidance available would appear to be the "50% rule" of 91.207(c)(2). Since that rule is (a) ambiguous and inscrutible, and (b) less generous than what the manufacturer specifies, nobody in his right mind would do anything OTHER than comply with the manufacturer's guidance.

I can very well see someone defending themselves in an NTSB hearing or civil court using the FAA's language, and I'm sure it's been done.

Legal and Prudent are mutually exclusive concepts, after all.

[Tom Downey]

Tom, you missed the best part of Mike's statement:

NO simply re-enforcing the point

I can very well see someone defending themselves in an NTSB hearing or civil court using the FAA's language, and I'm sure it's been done.

Legal and Prudent are mutually exclusive concepts, after all.

Agreed, what is safe isn't always legal, and what is legal isn't always safe, but ELT batteries ? Well its a moot point IMHO anyway, the old ACK yellow box can't be used IAW the FCC, but it does meet the 91.207 rule as written, So it's legal but safe?

[Mike Busch]

If we believe the installation instructions are not mandatory ICAs, and we are not required to comply with them, why would we believe the date code requirement in the same instruction is required?I can't imagine any A&P-IA, Owner, or operator defending them selves in a NTSB hearing, or civil court by telling the Judge we are not required to comply with the maintenance instructions written by the manufacturer, when the FAA requires the manufacturer to write them prior to certifications of all components that are not on the type certificate.

Installation instructions are mandatory because they are "how-to's" rather than "when-to's." Battery replacement in not mandatory because it's a "when-to" and not a "how-to."

"How-to's" (or in regspeak "methods, techniques and practices" are the mechanic's responsibility and governed by Part 43. Specifically, 43.13 requires that we use methods, techniques and practices prescribed by the manufacturer's maintenance manual or ICA.

When-to's (or in regspeak "inspection, overhaul and replacement intervals") are the owner's responsibility and governed by Part 91 Subpart E. Compliance with manufacturer-prescribed inspection, overhaul and replacement intervals is required ONLY under two conditions: if mandated by AD, or if set forth in a clearly identified Airworthiness Limitations section of the manufacturer's maintenance manual or ICA.

Everyone knows that engine and prop TBOs are not compulsory for a Part 91 operator. The exact same thing applies to ALL manufacturer-prescribed inspection, overhaul and replacement intervals (even ELT batteries) for exactly the same reason.

This would be an absolute and effective defense in an NTSB hearing where the issue is whether or not a certificate holder complied with or violated the FARs.

Civil court is a whole different kettle of fish, because the standard for civil negligence is not regulatory compliance but rather the elusive and ill-defined "reasonable and prudent" standard that is pretty much in the eye of the beholder (juror). You can be in total compliance with all applicable regulations and still be found negligent in civil court. Jurors are totally unpredictable. That's why we have CGL insurance.

[rosiejerryrosie]

I can't believe that a question about changing batteries has gone to five pages! Hope no body asks about changing oil!! or light bulbs!!

[Tom Downey]

Installation instructions are mandatory because they are "how-to's" rather than "when-to's." Battery replacement in not mandatory because it's a "when-to" and not a "how-to."

"How-to's" (or in regspeak "methods, techniques and practices" are the mechanic's responsibility and governed by Part 43. Specifically, 43.13 requires that we use methods, techniques and practices prescribed by the manufacturer's maintenance manual or ICA.

When-to's (or in regspeak "inspection, overhaul and replacement intervals") are the owner's responsibility and governed by Part 91 Subpart E. Compliance with manufacturer-prescribed inspection, overhaul and replacement intervals is required ONLY under two conditions: if mandated by AD, or if set forth in a clearly identified Airworthiness Limitations section of the manufacturer's maintenance manual or ICA.

Everyone knows that engine and prop TBOs are not compulsory for a Part 91 operator. The exact same thing applies to ALL manufacturer-prescribed inspection, overhaul and replacement intervals (even ELT batteries) for exactly the same reason.

This would be an absolute and effective defense in an NTSB hearing where the issue is whether or not a certificate holder complied with or violated the FARs.

Civil court is a whole different kettle of fish, because the standard for civil negligence is not regulatory compliance but rather the elusive and ill-defined "reasonable and prudent" standard that is pretty much in the eye of the beholder (juror). You can be in total compliance with all applicable regulations and still be found negligent in civil court. Jurors are totally unpredictable. That's why we have CGL insurance.

Mike brings up a very valid point, that this whole issues revolves around FAR 43.13/15/16 And if the inspector believes the maintenance instructions provided are mandatory or not. If we believe they are not, that would make the battery replacement date a non binding issue and we would never be required to replace it. Because 91.207 D 1-4 has no requirements for voltage or life date.

seeing as the FAA placed this statement in the approval letter for production of the Amer-King 451 (see the first para o the second page) http://www.ameri-king.com/pdf/FAA TSO C91a, C126, FCC, AND COSPAS-SARSAT TYPE APPROVAL CERTIFICATE APPROVED DOCUMENTS FOR MODEL.PDF we would have a very difficult time convincing any NTSB judge that the manufacturers instructions are not required maintenance.

My contention is simply this, to uphold our obligation to FAR 43.16 we must use the practices acceptable to the administrator and the manufacturers instructions are all we have. so in giving the instructions say the battery has a life limit dated on it, or a voltage limit, that is as close as we can get to a time life item, in as much as we are required to record and track the time or voltage.

As Mike pointed out, we use manufacturers instruction manuals to maintain every thing else why would we deviate here.

[Tom Downey]

I can't believe that a question about changing batteries has gone to five pages! Hope no body asks about changing oil!! or light bulbs!!

Isn't that what these forums are for? the discussion and education of the members.

[Bill Berson]

Mikes excellent article (Sport Aviation Dec 2011) says: " you may ignore ICA (instructions for continued airworthiness) with regard to time intervals but not if the ICA contains a clearly identified FAA-approved ALS (airworthiness limitations section). (or mandated through an FAA airworthiness directive.

I scanned through this ELT ICA and could not find any ALS:http://www.ameri-king.com/pdf/03c%20...0and%20ICA.pdf

I would follow the manufacturer time recommendations in this case, even if no ALS.
This is an interesting learning experience, perhaps the first or only case where a typical Cessna owner will encounter these issues of ICA and ALS, since most personal airplanes do not have time life parts (Cirrus is one that does have an ALS). Helicopters certainly have life-limited parts usually listed in the overhaul manual and TCDS (type certificate data sheets).
We need to consider the possible ICA for any part or addition to the airplane, as this example shows.
Bill

[Frank Giger]

That December article brought a long discussion at the airport in regards to engine TBO's.

It was pretty spirited until the A&P showed up.

He's a good'un and agreed that overhauls aren't tied to numbers of hours so much as the state of the engine. Just because an engine has less than X hours doesn't mean it doesn't need to be torn down; the same is true for those past X hours.

He related a story of a guy who was incredulous that he needed an overhaul because the Hobbs said it wasn't time for it!

Since we all agreed that at the TBO milestone the engine should be inspected, we all parted with handshakes.

The thread creep is appropriate, IMHO, as it speaks to the larger issue of scheduled maintenance. We all want our planes to be safe and functional; we also would like them to meet the letter of the rules whenever possible.

[rosiejerryrosie]

Isn't that what these forums are for? the discussion and education of the members.

Meant as a joke, Tom, just a bit of laughter for an otherwise dreary day.